Author
Topic: Ingmar Bergman (Read 45574 times)

that's weird because a screenplay i wrote was influenced by autumn sonata before i even saw the movie. i think it was in 'my dinner with andre' where the taller man quoted that movie about 'i could always live in my art and not in my life', or something along those lines and i found myself writing a screenplay based on that line. scenes from a marriage is good, as far as i can remember it. i'll really have to revisit it. i remember it being not as enjoyable (if that is the right word for bergman) as his others, but good nonetheless. insightful for sure.

does anyone think bergman is not very cinematic and more theatrical?i ve been confused on how i feel about him lately and wondering if i was just forcing myself in liking his films.take for instance persona. what makes persona so great? (godadrdian?)

sometimes i feel that his ideas are very general and abstract and that for some reason i cant seem to connect with his ideas even though his movies are full of emotion.

this is not a diss on bergman. im just confused right now and would like some insight.

Yes. He has spent more time even directing theatre than film. I don't see the problem though. Many film directors have showed much influence from theatre in their career have stamped their own career by it. Don't look at it as failure to be cinematic, but excellence in being theatrical. And really, the rules of editing have from Sergei Eisenstein, a man who for his sound films, was actually trying to push the limits of theatrical display on film.

Quote from: Sanjuro

take for instance persona. what makes persona so great? (godadrdian?)

sometimes i feel that his ideas are very general and abstract and that for some reason i cant seem to connect with his ideas even though his movies are full of emotion.

None of his ideas are new at all or really great on the basis of ideas. With Persona, the power of the film is how moved we are by the situation. The film really is disturbing. Its like Ghostboy said for Cries and Whispers, its the most horrific (non horror) film ever made for him. Persona and Cries and Whispers are so great for me because of the emotion they bring to old subjects. It feels like they are made fresh again. The best part of Persona is that it is so personal to these women that it feels like a personal experience for us as well. Can anyone name a scene more painful to get through than the nurse recalling her beach episode? The worst part of Persona is the symbolism. The coming together of the two faces (actress, nurse) is the most famous scene in the movie, but the worst for me. Its so punctual in easily symbolism that it distracts against how personal everything else in the rest of the film. Also, the scenes symbolizing general horror of war is too far removed from the immediate story to be effective. Everything that is excellent in Persona is how much you take with you after seeing the movie as personal experience.

I've only seen the Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries, and Cries and Whispers (in that order). I love the Seventh Seal a lot, it's really great, I think I needed to listen to the audio commentary to gain a fuller love for it, but I still love it. Wild Strawberries, the dream sequence was really great, but I didn't like the movie very much. Same with Cries and Whispers, I agree with whoever said it is slow. I can take slow pacings, but I dunno, I'm just remembering this movie and I'm about to nod off. I should probably watch them again, because, thinking back, I might have been in the wrong state of mind. I really want to see the Criterion trilogy they just released, mostly because the cover art is so fucking striking, heh, that's not the best reason, but shit if Criterion doesn't make some nice ass cover art.

As GT stated, Bergman has done a lot of work in the theatre but I think of him as a very cinematic director. Just think about the beginning and ending of Persona. Wild Strawberries with the dream sequence. There is nothing Bergman does better than no one else, but I don't think any other Director puts everything together as well as he does. Everything in the films I have seen of his is just done so damn well. There aren't really any mistakes in his films.

As GT stated, Bergman has done a lot of work in the theatre but I think of him as a very cinematic director. Just think about the beginning and ending of Persona. Wild Strawberries with the dream sequence. There is nothing Bergman does better than no one else, but I don't think any other Director puts everything together as well as he does. Everything in the films I have seen of his is just done so damn well. There aren't really any mistakes in his films.

You said he was cinematic and identified some scenes to back them up. I will agree with you on the Wild Strawberries dream sequence scene and to a point with Persona. The wild sequence of an animal being killed, an old comedy, a nail through someones hand - are cinematic. The major scene in that sequence where the boy wakes up on the bed and the image of the women appear before him, is not. First, the background to what he wakes up is as bare as a stage. Then the large picture seems special effect material to what an avante garde play could produce.

I think Bergman uses his camera as well as anyone, but I don't believe he is cinematic. I believe he is theatrical. Most of his films are set in a small place. They hardly wonder from place to place capturing physical beauty everywhere or parading the film around with camera tricks galore. They are about the specifically coordinated little world Bergman creates to work best with his actors and the emotion he wants the work to convey - as in a play. Cries and Whispers is an excellent example. The film seems to take place in a maximum of 6 rooms only, with a little scene outside. All the rooms are esquite in realism and believability, but also highly artificial. The color red dominates the picture to unheard of terms. For a period piece, I'd never seen any house have one color dominate it that way. Thing is, it is artificial because it is for the artistic purpose of conveying the color Bergman believes to be the color of the soul. Bergman hardly uses camera tricks but dominates his films with effects mainly of a play. Around this, Bergman dips and in out of some cinematic tricks. His main purpose is conveying the effect of theatre on film.

As GT stated, Bergman has done a lot of work in the theatre but I think of him as a very cinematic director. Just think about the beginning and ending of Persona. Wild Strawberries with the dream sequence. There is nothing Bergman does better than no one else, but I don't think any other Director puts everything together as well as he does. Everything in the films I have seen of his is just done so damn well. There aren't really any mistakes in his films.

You said he was cinematic and identified some scenes to back them up. I will agree with you on the Wild Strawberries dream sequence scene and to a point with Persona. The wild sequence of an animal being killed, an old comedy, a nail through someones hand - are cinematic. The major scene in that sequence where the boy wakes up on the bed and the image of the women appear before him, is not. First, the background to what he wakes up is as bare as a stage. Then the large picture seems special effect material to what an avante garde play could produce.

I think Bergman uses his camera as well as anyone, but I don't believe he is cinematic. I believe he is theatrical. Most of his films are set in a small place. They hardly wonder from place to place capturing physical beauty everywhere or parading the film around with camera tricks galore. They are about the specifically coordinated little world Bergman creates to work best with his actors and the emotion he wants the work to convey - as in a play. Cries and Whispers is an excellent example. The film seems to take place in a maximum of 6 rooms only, with a little scene outside. All the rooms are esquite in realism and believability, but also highly artificial. The color red dominates the picture to unheard of terms. For a period piece, I'd never seen any house have one color dominate it that way. Thing is, it is artificial because it is for the artistic purpose of conveying the color Bergman believes to be the color of the soul. Bergman hardly uses camera tricks but dominates his films with effects mainly of a play. Around this, Bergman dips and in out of some cinematic tricks. His main purpose is conveying the effect of theatre on film.

What about the very opening and closing shots of Persona. When you see filmstrip running and the camera turn around and show the crew...that is cinematic. Also in Persona, he uses the landscape of the beach much as the same way Antonioni uses the landscape in L'Avventura. Same goes for The Seventh Seal.

would any of you consider bergman as one of the best film directors ever?or his movies as one of the best films ever made. (take for instance cries and whispers, which i think is his best among those i have seen, even better than persona)

i just want to see your opinions on how he ranks with other of the great directors.

What about the very opening and closing shots of Persona. When you see filmstrip running and the camera turn around and show the crew...that is cinematic. Also in Persona, he uses the landscape of the beach much as the same way Antonioni uses the landscape in L'Avventura. Same goes for The Seventh Seal.

Like I said, I agreed with you on the parts of Persona dealing with the wild imagery, film strip part included. I don't think for a second though he uses landscape the same way Antonioni does. Antonioni dramatized his entire movie by the effect of the environment on the characters. Persona doesn't really seem to hinder on its environment for drama more than just provide the idea - these two women share a house together and they must get along. Again, the environment is as small as it would be in a play. Very few scenes happen outside the house. Other than the actress running away in tears along the beach with the waves crashing, I don't see much reliance on environment the same way Antonioni uses it. All the other outside scenes seem very convential.

The Seventh Seal is another story. I'm not going to argue for it. It does use the camera for allegory, which is cinematic. I also believe The Seventh Seal is Bergman still very much a beginner. Many of the points in his film feel pretensious because it feels like only the camera really is giving us the symbolism for drama. It doesn't make us feel the drama.

I'm gonna hit IB hard next year. Where should I start? Cries/Whispers, or the new CC trilogy set? Or somewhere else? I've seen clips of Fanny And Alexander, and it doesn't look that interesting to me. Also, I saw his son's movie (Sunday's Children, or something) and thought it was pretty terrible.

Anyway...

Logged

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.